Why sequels always sucks?

[Anonymous]

[abc3643]

That's false.

Sequels do not always suck.

For instance, for 1972, "The Godfather" won the Academy Award for Best Picture.

It's immediate 1974 sequel, "The Godfather, Part II" also won the Academy Award for Best Picture.

The 1990 sequel "The Godfather, Part III" was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, but it was up against several other great movies.

Many people consider "Aliens" to be better than "Alien".

Many people consider "Goldfinger" to be the best James Bond film; the original was "Dr. No".

[TroyDT2]

I wouldn't say always, but very often.

[kylee2437]

Because they are buying into the fact that they can put anything out as long as it’s nostalgic and they will make bank off of it before it even drops. They make products and such regarding the sequel before it even comes out. They prey upon the shock factor, not how people actually feel about the movie.

[DubiousIntentions]

I'll say that Hocus Pocus was not as good as the first. In fact, I didn't even watch all of it when it seemed more lame than the first.

[NathanDavis]

I first read this question very wrongly... lol

and, I really don't know about this movie but many movies' rights are sold to people that only want to cash/secure by using an already stablished name

[idkwhatsreal]

Because they try the hardest on the original to build A fan base. The sequel they hope the fan base is invested enough where people will go see it cuz they liked the first one. They can relax their budget And pockets some cash after that.

[dustybiker]

Some are actually better. Terminator two was better than the original.

[DryGermanGuy]

True. Similar with Alien versus Aliens, the Back to the Future trilogy, Star Wars Episode 4-6...

[dustybiker]

@DryGermanGuy Yes. There are quite a few.

[HighValue]

They usually do, but not always.

Terminator 2, Friday the 13th 7 are a couple that were actually better.

[Sour-rose]

well either they use that money for something and make SOMETHING off the sequel or don't and lose that money. :1

[Andres77]

because they're lazy and want to capitalize on old work, making money by just regurgitating something else that was successful but slightly making it different.

[TrueConfection]

The sequel is just a 2 hour commercial to buy more merchandise.

[exitseven]

Not always. i thought Terminator 2 was better than the original.

[AddylynnNightingale]

Because they want to suck it dry for money because it worked the first time.

[Twalli]

They don't always suck. Most movies are made to be a complete story from start to finish, so the sequel needs to have new material that wasn't originally in the plan of the first movie.

[NerdInDenial]

Rush Hour 2, Terminator 2 and Godfather Part II are pretty good.

[ericclayton]

Because it's usually about capitalization rather than art. Remakes are just the same, it's lazy capitalization rather than original ideas.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Not always, but sometimes. I reckon it’s because the sequel ain’t all original.

[FictionalCharacter]

Different directors and writers

[Iron_Man]

The Rocky movies are good